[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 153 (Thursday, September 22, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8085-H8090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1400
INVEST TO PROTECT ACT OF 2022
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1377, I call up
the bill (H.R. 6448) to direct the Director of the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services of the Department of Justice to carry out a
grant program to provide assistance to police departments with fewer
than 200 law enforcement officers, and for other purposes, and ask for
its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1377, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 117-65 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 6448
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Invest to Protect Act of
2022''.
SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) De-escalation training.--The term ``de-escalation
training'' means training relating to taking action or
communicating verbally or non-verbally during a potential
force encounter in an attempt to stabilize the situation so
that more time, options, and resources can be called upon to
minimize the need for the use of force and increase the
likelihood of voluntary compliance, including persuasion,
warnings, creating space, use of physical barriers, slowing
down the pace of an incident, and requesting additional
resources.
(2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Office.
(3) Eligible local government.--The term ``eligible local
government'' means--
(A) a county, municipality, town, township, village,
parish, borough, or other unit of general government below
the State level that employs fewer than 125 law enforcement
officers; or
(B) a Tribal government that employs fewer than 125 law
enforcement officers.
(4) Law enforcement officer.--The term ``law enforcement
officer'' has the meaning given the term ``career law
enforcement officer'' in section 1709 of title I the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10389).
(5) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services of the Department of
Justice.
(b) Establishment.--There is established within the Office
a grant program to--
(1) provide training and access to mental health resources
to local law enforcement officers; and
(2) improve the recruitment and retention of local law
enforcement officers.
(c) Authority.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director shall award grants to
eligible local governments as a part of the grant program
established under subsection (b).
(d) Applications.--
(1) Barriers.--The Attorney General shall determine what
barriers exist to establishing a streamlined application
process for grants under this section.
(2) Report.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to
Congress a report that includes a plan to execute a
streamlined application process for grants under this section
under which an eligible local government seeking a grant
under this section can reasonably complete the application in
not more than 2 hours.
(B) Contents of plan.--The plan required under subparagraph
(A) may include a plan for--
(i) proactively providing eligible local governments
seeking a grant under this section with information on the
data such eligible local governments will need to prepare
before beginning the grant application; and
(ii) ensuring technical assistance is available for
eligible local governments seeking a grant under this section
before and during the grant application process, including
through dedicated liaisons within the Office.
(3) Applications.--In selecting eligible local governments
to receive grants under this section, the Director shall use
the streamlined application process described in paragraph
(2)(A).
(4) Preference.--The Attorney General may give preference
to applicants who specify in their applications that grant
amounts will be used for the eligible activities set forth in
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (9), and (10) of subsection
(e).
(e) Eligible Activities.--An eligible local government that
receives a grant under this section may use amounts from the
grant only for--
(1) de-escalation training for law enforcement officers;
(2) victim-centered training for law enforcement officers
in handling situations of domestic violence;
(3) evidence-based law enforcement safety training for
response to calls for service involving--
(A) persons with substance use disorders;
(B) persons with mental health needs;
(C) veterans;
(D) persons with disabilities;
(E) vulnerable youth;
(F) persons who are victims of domestic violence, sexual
assault, or trafficking; and
(G) persons experiencing homelessness or living in poverty;
(4) the offsetting of overtime costs associated with
scheduling issues relating to the participation of a law
enforcement officer in the training described in paragraphs
(1) through (3), (9) and (10);
(5) a signing bonus for a law enforcement officer in an
amount determined by the eligible local government;
(6) a retention bonus for a law enforcement officer--
(A) in an amount determined by the eligible local
government that does not exceed 20 percent of the salary of
the law enforcement officer; and
(B) who--
(i) has been employed at the law enforcement agency for not
fewer than 5 years;
(ii) has not been found by an internal investigation to
have engaged in serious misconduct; and
(iii) commits to remain with the law enforcement agency for
a minimum 3 years from the time of receipt of the bonus;
(7) a stipend for the graduate education of law enforcement
officers in the area of mental health, public health, or
social work, which shall not exceed the lesser of--
(A) $10,000; or
(B) the amount the law enforcement officer pays towards
such graduate education;
(8) providing access to patient-centered behavioral health
services for law enforcement officers, which may include
resources for risk assessments, evidence-based, trauma-
informed care to treat post-traumatic stress disorder or
acute stress disorder, peer support and counselor services
and family supports, and the promotion of improved access to
high quality mental health care through telehealth;
(9) implementation of evidence-based best practices and
training on the use of lethal and nonlethal force;
(10) implementation of evidence-based best practices and
training on the duty of care and the duty to intervene; and
(11) data collection for police practices regarding officer
and community safety.
(f) Reporting Requirements for Grant Recipients.--
(1) In general.--The Director shall establish reporting
requirements for eligible local government that receive a
grant under this section in order to assist with the
evaluation by the Office of the program established under
this section.
(2) Considerations.--In establishing any requirements under
paragraph (1), the Director shall consider the capacity of
law enforcement agencies with fewer than 125 officers to
collect and report information.
(g) Disclosure of Officer Recruitment and Retention
Bonuses.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date on
which an eligible local government that receives a grant
under this section awards a signing or retention bonus
described in paragraph (5) or (6) of subsection (e), the
eligible local government shall disclose to the Director and
make publicly available on a website of the eligible local
government the amount of such bonus.
(2) Report.--The Attorney General shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees an annual report that
includes each signing or retention bonus disclosed under
paragraph (1) during the preceding year.
(h) Grant Accountability.--All grants awarded by the
Director under this section shall be subject to the following
accountability provisions:
(1) Audit requirement.--
(A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term ``unresolved
audit finding'' means a finding in the final audit report of
the Inspector General of the Department of Justice that the
audited grantee has used grant funds for an unauthorized
expenditure or otherwise unallowable cost that is not closed
or resolved within 12 months from the date when the final
audit report is issued.
(B) Audits.--Beginning in the first fiscal year beginning
after the date of enactment of this subsection, and in each
fiscal year thereafter, the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice shall conduct audits of recipients of
grants
[[Page H8086]]
under this section to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of
funds by grantees. The Inspector General of the Department of
Justice shall determine the appropriate number of grantees to
be audited each year.
(C) Mandatory exclusion.--A recipient of grant funds under
this section that is found to have an unresolved audit
finding shall not be eligible to receive grant funds under
this section during the first 3 fiscal years beginning after
the end of the 12-month period described in subparagraph (A).
(D) Reimbursement.--If an eligible local government is
awarded grant funds under this section during the 3-fiscal-
year period during which the eligible local government is
barred from receiving grants under subparagraph (C), the
Attorney General shall--
(i) deposit an amount equal to the amount of the grant
funds that were improperly awarded to the grantee into the
General Fund of the Treasury; and
(ii) seek to recoup the costs of the repayment to the fund
from the grant recipient that was erroneously awarded grant
funds.
(2) Annual certification.--Beginning in the fiscal year
during which audits commence under paragraph (1)(B), the
Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the
Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate
and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives an annual
certification--
(A) indicating whether--
(i) all audits issued by the Office of the Inspector
General of the Department of Justice under paragraph (1) have
been completed and reviewed by the appropriate Assistant
Attorney General or Director;
(ii) all mandatory exclusions required under paragraph
(1)(C) have been issued; and
(iii) all reimbursements required under paragraph (1)(E)
have been made; and
(B) that includes a list of any grant recipients excluded
under paragraph (1) from the previous year.
(i) Program Evaluation.--The Attorney General shall, on an
annual basis, conduct analyses of the information provided by
grant recipients pursuant to subsection (f) to evaluate the
efficacy of training programs funded through the grant
program established by this Act in reducing the incidence of
use of force by the law enforcement agency.
(j) Preventing Duplicative Grants.--
(1) In general.--Before the Director awards a grant to an
eligible local government under this section, the Attorney
General shall compare potential grant awards with other
grants awarded by the Attorney General to determine if grant
awards are or have been awarded for a similar purpose.
(2) Report.--If the Attorney General awards grants to the
same applicant for a similar purpose, whether through the
grant program established by this Act or other grant programs
provided by the Department of Justice, the Attorney General
shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate
and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives a report that includes--
(A) a list of all such grants awarded, including the total
dollar amount of any such grants awarded; and
(B) the reason the Attorney General awarded multiple grants
to the same applicant for a similar purpose.
(k) Funding.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$60,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2027 to
carry out the grant program under this section.
(2) Limitation.--In carrying out this section for a fiscal
year, if the amounts made available in appropriations Acts
for that fiscal year is not less than the amount authorized
to be appropriated under paragraph (1), the Director shall
use not less than 20 percent of such amounts in that fiscal
year for grants under this section to eligible local
governments that will use the grants to carry out one or more
of the eligible activities set forth in paragraphs (1), (2),
(3), (4), (9), and (10) of subsection (e).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Jordan) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material on H.R. 6448.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6448, the Invest to Protect Act, is bipartisan
legislation to bolster law enforcement agencies' ability to address
staffing shortages and improve community safety through de-escalation
training and mental health resources.
Let me be clear, Democrats have always stood for equitable funding
for law enforcement. Contrary to what some of my colleagues might say,
the issue of violent crime is not a red State or blue State issue. The
rise in violent crime affects every community across the country.
Democrats also know that public safety and respect for civil rights
can coexist. Building healthy and strong communities does not require
us to choose between our rights and our safety.
This legislation would establish a grant program focused on improving
recruitment and retention of officers and providing additional training
and access to mental health resources for small law enforcement
agencies.
When police departments are unable to recruit, retain, and adequately
resource qualified officers, communities suffer a clear threat to
public safety. These officer staffing shortages can cause longer wait
times for emergency calls, fewer crimes cleared, and more overworked
officers, which can threaten both officer health and the quality of
life in our communities.
This bill seeks to address these challenges by providing additional
Federal resources to small agencies to recruit and retain qualified
officers, as well as provide additional training and support for these
agencies.
I thank Representative Josh Gottheimer for his leadership on this
issue and for introducing this important legislation along with his
bipartisan cosponsors.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman just said that the Democrats have always
been for--I think the direct quote was: ``equitable funding for law
enforcement.'' That is interesting because, just 2 years ago, here is
what the chairman said in June 2020:
There should be substantial cuts to police budgets.
I don't know how you can say you have always been for something when
2 years ago you said that you weren't, but that just seems what
Democrats are up to today.
Let's call this package of bills before us today exactly what it is:
It is an election year ploy from Democrats to look like they care about
funding law enforcement.
In the wake of radical leftwing efforts to defund the police, it is
no surprise that violent crime is on the rise in America. Every major
urban area has seen a huge uptick in violent crime. It should also be
no surprise that Democrats are now trying to run and hide from their
radical ideas and dangerous rhetoric.
For more than 2 years, we have seen violent crime surge all across
the country, particularly in Democrat-run cities while many of those
same Democrats not only advocated for defunding police departments, but
they did it. They cut them.
Now, the Democrats want to use Federal tax dollars to paper over the
problems they created in their local Democrat-run cities.
These bills do nothing to solve the underlying problem. They simply
create more grant programs within the bureaucracy of the Federal
Government.
Under current law, there are already grants available to law
enforcement to hire personnel. In fact, last year, the Justice
Department awarded more than $139 million in grant dollars through the
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. That money provided
funds to 183 law enforcement agencies and allowed them to hire more
than 1,000 additional officers.
We don't need more Federal grants so Democrat-run cities can then
divert taxpayer money to fund their woke agenda. What we need are
prosecutors who are willing to prosecute crimes and jurisdictions with
laws that actually keep violent criminals in prison.
Nothing in these bills prevents jurisdictions that choose to defund
their police from receiving these grant funds. In fact, when Judiciary
Republicans offered an amendment to preclude jurisdictions that
defunded their police from receiving grant funds, the Democrats
rejected it, and they rejected it unanimously.
Faced with an election just over a month away, House Democrats now
want to pretend they actually support law enforcement. The timing of
this bill should tell you all you need to know about where Democrat
priorities are.
[[Page H8087]]
Democrats who are in full control of this body have had 2 years to
show their support for law enforcement. Only now, when faced with an
impending election, are Democrats beginning to feign support for our
men and women in blue.
Democrats could have shown their support for law enforcement.
Instead, Democrats passed bills to infringe on Americans' Second
Amendment rights, legalize marijuana, and further empower the Biden
Justice Department to spy on concerned parents.
These bills are just another admission by Democrats that the defund
the police movement is wrong and irresponsible. Perhaps, if the
Democrats weren't in a cleanup mode after their irresponsible embrace
of defund the police rhetoric, the Judiciary Committee could have had
an opportunity to consider and improve most of these bills before they
came to the floor. But we didn't. Instead, Democrats are rushing to
consider these bills to give themselves some pretense that they support
funding the police.
No one is fooled. Americans know where Democrats really stand.
Americans aren't buying the Democrats' revisionist history. They have
seen years of Democrats embracing and supporting the radical defund the
police movement. Americans know that the Democrats are the party of
soaring crime and defunding the police.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition of this bill, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), the sponsor of this bill.
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my
bipartisan, bicameral legislation, the Invest to Protect Act, to invest
in good policing, to fight crime, and to protect our families and
officers.
We must ensure that local police departments across our country have
what they need to recruit and retain the finest officers, provide
necessary training, and invest in providing mental health resources for
our officers.
Across our country, we have seen a rise in crime, and this is at a
time when it is harder than ever to hire, recruit, and retain officers.
In fact, last year, public reports found a 44 percent increase in
retirements and an 18 percent increase in resignations of law
enforcement.
It is clear: If you want to make something better, you don't get
there by cutting or defunding. You need to make smart, targeted
investments. We must fund, not defund, law enforcement.
That is why I introduced the bipartisan Invest to Protect Act to make
critical investments in local police departments and protect our
communities.
Work on Invest to Protect started more than a year ago through
bipartisan police reform talks with Democrats and Republicans in the
House, the Senate, and the States, including with members of the
bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, who have overwhelmingly endorsed
this legislation.
I helped craft the bipartisan Invest to Protect Act with Republican
Congressman, former sheriff, and my friend, John Rutherford, and it
was developed through conversations with both sides in both Chambers,
and with a broad spectrum of stakeholders. I, again, thank the sheriff
for his work and leadership.
I am appreciative of the support and input from the National
Association of Police Organizations; the Fraternal Order of Police; our
New Jersey law enforcement organizations and departments, including the
New Jersey State PBA and the New Jersey State Fraternal Order of
Police; and my Senate colleagues.
This bill would not be where it is today without the support of
Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Joyce Beatty, whose leadership
and friendship have been critical. I also thank the Congressional
Progressive Caucus for their constructive engagement in this process. I
thank Caucus Chairman Jeffries and Speaker Pelosi for their work, as
well.
The Invest to Protect Act will invest in small and midsized police
departments with fewer than 125 sworn officers, which make up more than
96 percent of local departments.
First, it will invest in officer safety, de-escalation, and domestic
violence response training, and it will offset overtime pay for
officers who are training.
Second, it will provide grants for departments to recruit new
officers. It will also provide retention bonuses to help them keep
their best officers on the job.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Finally, it will help departments provide mental
health resources for their officers and include strong accountability
measures.
These are critical steps we must take.
Going forward, I will continue to fight for additional equipment and
training our officers need to protect our communities.
The bottom line: You can't cut or defund your way to safer
communities and better police departments. It is about investing to
protect. We must always get the backs of those who risk their lives
every day to protect us.
Again, I thank Sheriff Rutherford for his leadership, law enforcement
unions for working so hard on this legislation, and all of our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for putting country first and
getting this legislation to the floor.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Rutherford).
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.
I was very fortunate during my 40-year law enforcement career to work
for a large and growing law enforcement agency. We had the resources to
go after Federal grants to help keep our community safe, to bring those
Federal dollars back home to protect my community.
I know that many agencies that I worked with did not have that
benefit, and that is why, on many of the projects that came from
Federal participation, we often partnered with much smaller agencies to
help them out.
This bill is all about helping those agencies with 125 officers or
less to be able to access those Federal grants that they cannot access
right now for training, retention, and hiring. That is what we should
be doing, Mr. Speaker.
That is why I worked with my good friend across the aisle, Josh
Gottheimer. I appreciate him working on this, getting to the language
that we could all agree with. It has been back and forth quite a bit,
but we got it here to the floor, and I congratulate him on that.
This is a bipartisan issue. This is for our law enforcement men and
women. These are for those small agencies. We need to be able to help
them out.
I can tell you the last 2\1/2\ years have left law enforcement
demoralized like never before. I have seen it. They need this
assistance as they have officers that are leaving in droves.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together
and vote for this bill, which is going to help small law enforcement
agencies join with the National Fraternal Order of Police, which
supports this bill, and other law enforcement organizations. NAPO is
another.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to vote ``yes'' on this bill. I
believe these small law enforcement agencies absolutely need our
assistance.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think it should be noted that this
bill, H.R. 6448, the Invest to Protect Act of 2022, is bipartisan
legislation that would bolster small law enforcement agencies' ability
to address staffing shortages and improve community safety through de-
escalation training and other resources.
It was Democrats who spent 2 years negotiating and working with law
enforcement to introduce and pass the comprehensive George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act, which recognized the necessity of balancing
the needs and safety of community in which law enforcement interests
engage. I worked on that.
{time} 1415
I worked on that. That is why I tried to make this bill better by
adding
[[Page H8088]]
three additional purposes for grant funding which include issues
dealing with use of lethal force, excessive force, and duty of care.
I am glad that they were added, and grantees who choose these
activities will be required to do this under this particular provision.
We can do this together. And let me be very clear: this is not a
last-ditch effort by Democrats to distance ourselves from efforts to
defund the police.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6448, the ``Invest to Protect
Act of 2022,''--bipartisan legislation that would bolster small law
enforcement agencies' ability to address staffing shortages and improve
community safety through de-escalation training and other resources.
First, let's be clear--This is not a last-ditch effort by Democrats
to distance ourselves from efforts to defund the police. Democrats have
always been supportive of law enforcement.
We have been accused of spending the last two years bashing the
police. Yet, it was Democrats who spent two years negotiating and
working with law enforcement to introduce and pass the comprehensive
``George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021''--which recognized the
necessity of balancing the needs and safety of the community with law
enforcement interests.
H.R. 6448 would establish a grant program within the Department of
Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, program
focused on improving recruitment and retention of officers and
providing additional training and access to mental health resources for
small law enforcement agencies.
When police departments are unable to recruit, retain or provide
suitable resources to qualified officers, communities suffer a clear
threat to public safety. A June 2021 national survey by the Police
Executive Research Forum found that, on average, police departments
around the country were filling only 93 percent of their available
budgeted positions.
These officer staffing shortages can cause longer wait times for
emergency calls, fewer crimes cleared, and more overworked officers,
which can threaten both officer health and the quality of life in our
communities.
This bill seeks to address these challenges by providing additional
federal resources to small agencies--that often have the most trouble
accessing federal grant funding--to recruit and retain qualified
officers as well as provide additional training and support.
A 2016 study by the Department of Justice (DOJ) found that of the
12,261 local police departments in the country, 11,638 of them had less
than 100 full-time sworn officers. That is 11,638 police departments
that would be eligible to access much-needed funding as authorized by
H.R. 6448.
Importantly, H.R. 6448 includes limitations on the use of grant funds
for hiring and retention to ensure that the funds are not misused, and
gives preference to applicants that plan to use grant funds for certain
training purposes, including:
de-escalation; the use of lethal and nonlethal force; the duty of
care and the duty to intervene--as well as--
victim-centered training on handling domestic violence situations;
and
safety training for officers responding to calls involving persons
with substance use disorders, mental health needs, disabilities, and
vulnerable youth.
This bill would also allow departments to use funds to provide mental
health services and treatment to officers and collect data on policing
practices that focus on officer and community safety.
In its totality, H.R. 6448 provides critical funding to law
enforcement agencies that need it while encouraging improvement among
their ranks. This bill makes clear that Democrats will continue to
uplift and support law enforcement--as we always have--and we will do
so in a manner that ensures officers are well-trained to keep
themselves safe as well as the people and communities they serve.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an
additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Democrats have always been supportive of law
enforcement along with our civil rights friends, and we have put in
firewalls to insist that we work together with law enforcement and
large and small entities and that we work with on behalf of justice for
our constituents and for providing wellness to our police officers,
providing intervention of violence, and as well to ensure that we
assist in cases that are backlogged. Democrats have been at the
forefront. I am very glad to say that we don't ask to defund the FBI,
we ask to be supportive of our community.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear. The Democrats want to go from
COPS to community organizers, and they want the American taxpayer to
pay for it. That is what they want to do in Democrat-run cities.
Mr. Speaker, read the bill. It talks about stipends to be used for
graduate education or social work. That is what the bill is for. It is
not about putting cops on the street. It is about transferring wealth
from the people who funded their police and communities around the
country, who funded their police, and giving American tax dollars to
cities who didn't fund their police so they can use it for community
organizers.
That is what this bill is about. That is why we are against it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Arrington).
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with Mr. Jordan's sentiments, and I
might even take an even stronger and more critical opposition to these
so-called law enforcement bills. I certainly don't want to impugn the
motive of every colleague on the other side of the aisle, but here are
my strong views, and this is my position on behalf of west Texas:
Since the riots of 2020, I have been warning my Democratic colleagues
that we get what we tolerate. After 2 years of Democrats' amplifying
defund the police rhetoric, failing to hold criminals accountable, and
refusing to condemn the lawlessness that is running rampant in our
cities across the country, crime is absolutely out of control.
Last year, a record number of police officers were killed. Seventy-
three American heroes lost their lives. Law enforcement has experienced
a staggering 115 percent increase in ambush-style attacks. Further
evidence of the left's war on law enforcement is that police have seen
a 45 percent increase in retirements and a 20 percent increase in
resignations, leaving the most vulnerable Americans even more
susceptible to being victimized by criminals.
Now the party of defund the police wants to push through some face-
saving bills just ahead of the election in November. Call me cynical,
but that is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker.
This legislation would expand the Federal bureaucracy unnecessarily,
take over the responsibility of local governments, and add even more
strings to Federal funding for the Biden administration or future
administrations to impose their woke agenda and unrelated progressive
policies on the American people.
Mr. Speaker, these are not real solutions to the crime epidemic in
America. These are political machinations to give the appearance of
being supportive of law enforcement. These are a Texas-sized fig leaf
to cover the Democrat left's reckless policies and dangerous rhetoric
that have encouraged crime, have only coddled criminals, and have
created a culture of lawlessness in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I condemn all of that, and I urge my colleagues on both
sides to vote ``no'' on this bill and the whole lot of these bills that
are really just political window dressing.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, in follow-up to my colleague from Texas'
comment, I would also say that we get what we pay for, which is why I
rise to support the bipartisan Invest to Protect Act which is
legislation I was proud to cosponsor. This legislation follows our
prior increases of funding to the community-oriented policing program
through the appropriations process.
The Invest to Protect Act would help get the job done of ensuring
that police departments--particularly those like I represent in smaller
and rural communities--have the ability to recruit and retain officers.
This legislation invests in officer safety, it invests in domestic
violence response training, and it invests in funding the police
departments like those I represent.
Throughout Virginia's Seventh District, I hear directly from local
police departments about the need for stronger investments in training,
equipment, recruitment, and retention. And as a
[[Page H8089]]
former law enforcement officer, I greatly admire and am thankful for
the dedication of the men and women who work every day to keep our
communities safe.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. SPANBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Congressman
Gottheimer and Congressman Rutherford, for their leadership on this
legislation. I thank CBC Chair Beatty for her partnership on these
important issues of public safety and public trust. And I appreciate
that this bill has the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police and
the National Association of Police Officers.
This is a smart investment, smart policy, and at this moment we
should have the common commitment to keeping America's communities
safe.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6448,
the so-called Invest to Protect Act.
All of the bills that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
rushed to the floor today are nothing more than kind of last-minute
political items, obviously, a few weeks out from election day. They
will use these bills to claim that they support funding the police.
However, the American people are not fooled. They saw Democrats
across the country call for defunding of the police. There is video
that continues to run ad nauseam with examples of that, and it was all
in the wake of George Floyd's death.
We only need to look at the House Judiciary Committee Democrats'
refusal to take up these bills in regular order. For further evidence
that these bills are a political stunt, just this week, Judiciary
Committee Democrats postponed a hearing on organized retail theft until
after the election.
The simple truth is Democrats have no interest in putting forth a
serious effort to reduce crime. All the money in these grant programs
don't mean a thing if leftwing prosecutors continue to let violent
criminals out with little or no bail.
That is why yesterday my colleagues and I introduced the Keeping
Violent Offenders Off Our Streets Act after last year's horrific attack
in my district at the Waukesha Christmas parade.
This bill takes three steps to push back on radical leftwing bail
laws. It conditions the Byrne grant program funding on meeting the
Federal pretrial release factors as a floor. It reduces grant funding
by 75 percent unless State and local jurisdictions develop and maintain
a public safety report.
The problem in Waukesha was that later on the DA said, boy, we didn't
know what was going on in other States. We didn't know that there were
any other crimes committed there. And then judges did not have enough
information prior to setting bail.
We can't let people off the hook just by saying that we just didn't
have enough information. Six people died in the Waukesha Christmas
parade because no one took the time to figure out that this individual
who was before them was absolutely one of the most dangerous people
living in Wisconsin.
States would be further incentivized to report this information to
the National Crime Information Center. It would bring transparency, and
it would change the bail system.
Mr. Speaker, there are solutions to these issues; but, unfortunately,
there is a faction of the Democratic Party that simply continues to run
the opposite way. I don't know if it is to assure their constituencies
that they are with them, but that time is over.
Unfortunately, as we are in the middle of September right before the
November elections, the Democrats finally woke up.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that Mr. Fitzgerald would
admit that the Republicans want to defund the police by 75 percent.
That is what he just said. After all the Republican rhetoric about the
Democrats wanting to defund the police--which, of course, is not true--
Mr. Fitzgerald just got up and told us the Republicans want to defund
the police by 75 percent.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what my distinguished
colleague and chairman of the committee was referring to there, but I
yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.
Mr. Speaker, I would just add this: One of the phrases we heard from
the Democrats over the last couple of years is ``reimagined policing.''
Well, now we know what they mean. Now we get it. They want to take
money from communities who funded their police and give it to
communities who didn't, so they can get past this whole defund the
police that has been their mantra for the last couple years.
In fact, as I said before, I am surprised by some of the statements I
have heard from the chairman of the committee, because as I said, in
June of 2020--and it is a direct quote--``There should be substantial
cuts to the police budget. . . . `'--by Mr. Nadler.
Now he has got a bill that supposedly, they are saying, funds the
police, but we know it doesn't. It takes money from communities I get
the privilege of representing in west central Ohio who never, never
defunded their police. They made sure the men and women in blue got the
resources they needed to protect their communities.
And now the Democrats are saying: We want to take taxpayer dollars
from those communities and set up these grant programs so we can give
it to social workers. This is straight from the bill, so we can give
``a stipend to be used for graduate education in the area of mental
health, public health, or social work. . . . `'
That is what they want the money to be used for, not for the people
who are stopping the crime that is happening in every major urban area
around the country.
That is why we are opposed to this legislation. I hope it goes down.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would bolster law enforcement across the
country and improve public safety. I think it is telling that people
like Mr. Rutherford on the Republican side of the aisle helped craft
this bill with people like Mr. Gottheimer on this side of the aisle.
On the other hand, there are, obviously, a lot of Republicans like
Mr. Jordan who want to defund the police or at least defund small town
America police by opposing this bill.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support small town America and
to support policing in small town America by supporting this bill, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6448, the
``Invest to Protect Act of 2022,''--bipartisan legislation that would
bolster small law enforcement agencies' ability to address staffing
shortages and improve community safety through de-escalation training
and other resources.
It was Democrats who spent two years negotiating and working with law
enforcement to introduce and pass the comprehensive ``George Floyd
Justice in Policing Act of 2021''--which recognized the necessity of
balancing the needs and safety of the community with law enforcement
interests.
That is why I tried to make this bill better by adding three
additional purposes for the use of grant funding.
Development and implementation of best practices and training on the
use of lethal and nonlethal force;
Development and implementation of best practices and training to
eliminate the use of excessive force;
Development and implementation of best practices and training on the
duty of care and the duty to intervene.
I am glad those provisions were added where grantees who choose to
implement those activities will be given preference.
This bill seeks to address these challenges by providing additional
federal resources to small agencies--that often have the most trouble
accessing federal grant funding--to recruit and retain qualified
officers as well as provide additional training and support.
A 2016 study by the Department of Justice (DOJ) found that of the
12,261 local police departments in the country, 11,638 of them had less
than 100 full-time sworn officers. That is 11,638 police departments
that would be eligible to access much-needed funding as authorized by
H.R. 6448.
[[Page H8090]]
Importantly, H.R. 6448 includes limitations on the use of grant funds
for hiring and retention to ensure that the funds are not misused, and
gives preference to applicants that plan to use grant funds for certain
training purposes, including:
de-escalation; the use of lethal and nonlethal force; the duty of
care and the duty to intervene--as well as--
victim-centered training on handling domestic violence situations;
and
safety training for officers responding to calls involving persons
with substance use disorders, mental health needs, disabilities, and
vulnerable youth.
This bill would also allow departments to use funds to provide mental
health services and treatment to officers and collect data on policing
practices that focus on officer and community safety.
In its totality, H.R. 6448 provides critical funding to law
enforcement agencies that need it while encouraging improvement among
their ranks. This bill makes clear that Democrats will continue to
uplift and support law enforcement--as we always have--and we will do
so in a manner that ensures officers are well-trained to keep
themselves safe as well as the people and communities they serve.
Let's be clear--This is not a last-ditch effort by Democrats to
distance ourselves from efforts to defund the police. Democrats have
always been supportive of law enforcement.
Mr. GOTTHEIMER. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following
letter of support of H.R. 6448, Invest to Protect Act, from the
Fraternal Order of Police.
National Fraternal Order of Police,
Washington, DC, September 22, 2022.
Hon. Nancy P. Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin O. McCarthy,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Steny H. Hoyer,
Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Stephen J. Scalise,
Minority Whip, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker and Representatives McCarthy, Hoyer and
Scalise: I am writing on behalf of the members of the
Fraternal Order of Police to urge the Members of the U.S.
House of Representatives to support the passage of H.R. 5768,
the ``Violent Incident Clearance and Technological
Investigative Methods (VICTIM) Act,'' and H.R. 6448, the
``Invest to Protect Act,'' which could be considered on the
floor of the House as early as today.
Homicide cases can be very difficult to clear--especially
those committed via firearm--and non-fatal shootings even
more so. Closing these types of crimes requires diligence,
manpower, and a sustained investigative effort. Given the
limited resources of law enforcement agencies, it's important
to provide the significant, dedicated resources that clearing
these crimes requires, especially given their oftentimes
heinous nature, and the need to get justice for the victims
and their families.
The ``VICTIM Act'' would establish a grant program to help
State, Tribal, and local law enforcement agencies improve
their clearance rates for homicides, non-fatal shootings and
other violent crimes. Agencies can use these grant funds to
train, hire, or retain additional detectives, investigators,
or other police personnel to investigate, solve, and respond
to these crimes. The grants can also be used to improve
training for agency personnel to address the needs of victims
and family members impacted by these crimes. By providing
those important resources to law enforcement agencies across
the country, we can improve the chances that murders, sexual
assaults, kidnappings, and non-fatal shootings get cleared.
This means ensuring punishment for the perpetrators, securing
justice for the victims and their families, and providing
peace of mind for the communities our members work so hard to
protect.
The FOP also urges Members of the House to support H.R.
6448, the ``Invest to Protect Act.'' Over the last few years,
law enforcement officers have faced many challenges and
threats to their well-being that have created a dangerous
environment for those sworn to protect the public. These
challenges have ranged from violence against officers, an
increase in violent rhetoric against them, lagging
technology, recruitment and retention issues, and mental
health concerns. Smaller municipalities are experiencing
increased strain on the men and women in blue. We believe
that the ``Invest to Protect Act'' can help our nation's
smaller agencies and departments combat these issues that
plague law enforcement officers in smaller municipalities.
This legislation would establish a grant program that would
be used for training of officers from police departments and
municipalities that employ less than 125 law enforcement
officers. The funding appropriated would be $60 million over
a five-year period. These trainings would include de-
escalation, domestic violence response, and response calls to
vulnerable populations like those involving persons with
disabilities, mental health issues, or substance abuse
disorders.
This legislation is also designed to help these smaller
agencies recruit new officers and to help address the
retention issue of current officers. The funding could also
be used by officers from eligible departments who are
pursuing further education in mental health, public health,
or social work. These officers could receive up to $10,000 in
aid towards their tuition. Lastly, the funding could also be
used for mental health services, treatments, and therapies
for active police officers.
On behalf of the more than 364,000 members of the Fraternal
Order of Police, I urge the Members of the House to pass
these two bills to support our nation's small departments and
the communities they serve. If I can provide any additional
information about this bill, please do not hesitate to
contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco in our Washington,
D.C. office.
Sincerely,
Patrick Yoes,
National President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1377, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________